zabramow

We're in good pitching shape and it's definitely the right market. My thinking is that early stage companies should not be spending big money on conferences and it will all things considered run us 5K. I also think it's straight up disingenuous to have an application process if acceptance still means you have to shell out cash to participate.

The other side of this is spend money to make money.

I'm impulsive and quit my high paying job almost on a whim -- does that make me successful? Because, honestly, I wish I had planned a little better, put aside $$$ etc.

I know for a fact it feeds a ton of the YC companies.

Also discussed whether consumers really want to choose.

As a non-technical founder who had to search far and wide till we found the right freelancer (and then ultimately a full timer), I've wanted to build a site that connected development shops with clients. Interesting to see how much can go wrong in what should be a very simple model.

Just to clarify -- this would apply to people who turned down or were turned down by an accelerator.

Curious if you've speculated about the reason for the high volume of late applications, especially since you're pretty clear that early apps have a better chance to get accepted.

Had exact same question.

PS -- just reposted. Thanks all for the advice.

We posted yesterday, but our site went down because of peak traffic. Some of the commenters on the thread asked that, given the timeliness of the conversation that we repost.

We are going to repost now -- apologies again for the crash.

I'd be more than happy to but it's an entire back and forth and it's still ongoing. It will be on front page of site as soon as we're back up.

One of the more interesting comments that I will summarize was that uneven equity splits between founders is a red flag. Hadn't heard that elsewhere. Also oh assizes that one if the keys to a good application is showing that the founders won't ever divorce.

My apologies, site is currently down. Trying to fix and maybe repost.

I have the opposite scenario. When I left my job to found my start-up, it forced my wife to go back to work and NOT be with the kids. I can tell you that, while I don't suck as a dad, my wife was infinitely better at being a nurturing parent than I was.

To me, the real question is -- are we sure that women in the workplace is progress or will we look back 50 or 100 years from now and laugh at how silly we were to try to ignore gender difference.

And then his second comment was, "The essential fact about civil wars is that they happen less than once in a lifetime, and, because they happen less than once in a lifetime, the events leading into the civil war are not a part of anyone's experience. Our perception of the arc of history is like our perception of the world: it APPEARS to be flat, because it is bending so slowly that we can't see the curve. We are bending very slowly toward dysfunction leading to chaos, AS EVERY OTHER COUNTRY PERIODICALLY DOES, but because the curve is so gradual, we think that the world is flat, that the conflicts of today are merely repetitions of the conflicts of years past."

You're absolutely right. And I didn't follow up at the time because I was so thankful to get him as a guest on my cast in the first place.

For what it's worth -- I followed up yesterday with Bill by email and he said the following:

"Our political problems are more serious than most people are willing to admit. You look back at history, at nations that are careening into civil war--that is, at the US in 1850, at Kosovo in 1996, at England in 1642, at Rome in 60 BC or 90 BC--and you ALWAYS find that people don't take seriously the POSSIBILITY that they could be creating the conditions of a civil war, until something happens that they didn't expect, and . ..BOOM. . .all of a sudden it is too late to stop it. So what I am trying to say to the country, as best I am able to from my relatively small podium, is "take seriously the damage that you MAY be doing." You don't see a civil war coming. . .well, nobody ever sees a Civil War coming; that's why they happen. Nobody sees it until it is too late."

Agree. Especially since people are sick of signing up for services, especially when it requires username and password.

Btw, responded to your comment on the site, getting some great replies from the audience including yours!

http://www.replyall.me/the-replyall-cast/breaking-bad-as-a-m...

Was just having the discussion of whether or not to accelerate your company with one of the leaders of Bizdom accelerator in Cleveland.

http://www.replyall.me/zach-talks/to-accelerate-or-not-to-ac...

One issue I haven't brought up yet (but will) is whether a young company wants that kind of "access" or whether having to crawl before you walk makes companies iterate and get it right and get the "access" the old fashioned way. Sometimes think accelerators give companies access a little too quickly for the company's own good.

Any insight as to how this is substantially different than Clerky or, better yet, just going to Orrick's website or the NVCA website and getting the docs for free?

Btw, this post is about a month old, but posting again because it seems highly relevant in light of the bankruptcy filing.

Btw, just some context here. This is an interview with Paul Allen from the Bizdom accelerator in Cleveland that I did on my blog. I actually thought he made some very compelling arguments for why entrepreneurs -- even techies -- should go against the grain and choose midwest markets to set up shop.

I had a similar experience with Twitter, especially in terms of keeping tabs on competitors. Recently, I've stopped reading the tech blogs and I've found it's made me a ton happier and allowed me to focus on what I'm doing and stop looking in the rear view mirror.

This post really resonated with me.

Completely agree AM. I would have no problem if the person were using our domain, but they're not. They're squatting because they realize that someone ELSE will want the name. They have accomplished nothing from an innovation point of view, they've only seen some stroke of potential innovation -- which is why I compare it to a patent troll. Patent trolls don't actually innovate, and neither do people who buys what they know will ultimately be a catchy domain.

Funny that you mention domains, because, while there might be some public good in patents, it's much harder to say about domain name squatters. Why have we not put adequate regs in place to eliminate squatters? I liked a particular domain name for a new startup. I approached the domain name owner -- a FB engineer no less -- who had bought the domain, and I offered him a price that would have yielded him 7500 in profit. He turned us down and continues to squat on the domain and do nothing with it. We ended up going with a dotme domain, which isn't ideal.

Now, as a lean startup we probably shouldn't have been looking for an expensive domain name in the first place. But ineffective squatter rules (10K for an arbitration!) are preventing the marketplace from making the most of attractive, catchy domain names, and instead we're settling on domains that do not adequately describe the business.

I'm a big fan of Codeacademy myself. But, as someone who doesn't come from a technical background, I feel like I'm often completing many of their lessons, but not internalizing the information or actually learning how to code.

I don't plan on giving up, but I'm curious if others have had that experience or if I'm the only person who's figured out how to use Codeacademy without actually learning to code.